Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
Most Americans seem to believe that Trent Lott deserved to suffer for his "insensitive" comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. Now that Lott has been forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader, neo-conservative Republicans are the ones cheering the loudest.
"We've wanted him gone for a long time," some have said. "We needed to get rid of him and move on with our agenda." The trouble is, no one in the party seems to know exactly what that agenda is.
Of course, that hasn't stopped neo-cons before. Pragmatism has always trumped principle, and as long as the polls reflect public approval for their actions, they really don't care about anything else. They must increase their majority in 2004 at any cost, and to do that they must first shake their xenophobic image.
As everyone knows, the GOP has long been branded as the party of racists. Such labels have been successfully utilized by the liberal left for years, and Republicans have tried everything to keep those labels from sticking. The end result is that in order to present the voting public with a kinder, gentler GOP, Republicans typically begin adopting Democratic positions.
It's the same three-step process every time: 1) liberals make the accusation of racism against a Republican, 2) the Republican denies the charge and 3) the Republican agrees to sign on to the liberal agenda, hoping that in doing so he might prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not a racist. The entire fiasco surrounding Trent Lott is only the latest example of this kind of Republican cowardice.
Lott's comments sparked all the predictable reactions from all the usual suspects. Men like Al Sharpton and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume —both veteran champions of racial divisiveness —wasted no time in attacking the senator.
Sharpton, who had remained strangely silent in 2001 when Senate Democrat Robert Byrd let fly with his "white niggers" remark, said, "[Lott] should step aside. No one is saying that if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate that they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside."
Mfume's response was a bit more harsh. He called Lott's little speech "hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of the Congress," and dismissed Lott's subsequent apology as "too little, too late."
Reacting to the verbal barrage from the left, the neo-cons scattered. No one even bothered to mention the possibility that Lott was simply acknowledging the distinguished political career of his 100-year-old colleague. Nobody proposed that when the senator from Mississippi implied that we would be better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, he was referring to some of the more noble causes Thurmond stood for, like states' rights and a less-intrusive federal government.
No, the neo-cons were so desperate to prove that they could be just as racially sensitive as their slightly more liberal counterparts that Lott's political fate had already been sealed. He was the perfect fall guy, and his sacrifice was worth it if it meant keeping the GOP in power.
Republicans, listen up. Whether you agree that Trent Lott should have resigned as Majority Leader or not, his ousting is yet another sign that you just don't get it. No matter what you say or do, you will always be viewed by the left as a bunch of bigots and racists. Bending to political peer pressure doesn't help —in fact, it makes you look weak. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can begin repairing the damage your party has done to the conservative cause.
But it's probably too late. The mob has spoken, and Trent Lott has been forced out of his leadership role. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah summed up what Republicans expect of Bill Frist, Lott's successor: "I think Bill has a kind of a more moderate record and a more moderate approach toward things, and I think that it's going to be very difficult to criticize him."
In other words, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And that, my friends, has become the battle cry of the neo-conservatives in the GOP, Party of Cowards.
That was no show of strength. It was a combination of of wimpery and opportunism. Sure, they wanted to get rid of him before. They should have gotten rid of him before. But they didn't have the backbone to take him to task before any more than he had the backbone to stand up for conservative causes.
In the first place, Lott should have never apologized for anything more than that his words were misunderstood. This is the biggest BS issue and display of childishness I've seen in what is supposed to be such a "distinguished" body. In the second place, the party should have stood behind him rather than join the lynch mob. They should have not allowed the liberal racebaiters ANY leverage at all but should have instead turned it around on them and attacked them for their racebaiting and pettiness.
The last thing in the world that should have happened was for Lott to go on his butt-kissing apology tour. In effect, all he did by that was to pass out the ammunition for the mealy-mouthed $#%^& racebaiters to shoot him with. What he and the republican party succeeded in doing with their simpering and slobbering on the feet of the massa racebaiters was to give them the winning hand no matter what action was taken from that point on. If Lott got the boot, they won because, once again, their racist intimidation tactics trumped any common sense and decency on the part of the opposition. If he stayed, they had an automatic rubber stamp on anything they wanted in the Senate.
Bert was a parody of himself. You want quality invectitutde and insults, ping Deb into this thread.
If you will check profiles you might not play the senority game with one who has been around a bit longer. My point was and is first it was a mild slam in comparison to even others since posted on this thread and I will amplify now that you seem to have taken umbrage at my remarks, who the heck gave you the job as "Thread Cop"? It certainly seems to me that you are looking for any reason at all to jump "dirtboy". If you are so interested in police work why don't you take on Joe and Luis's continuing vendetta?
Enough nonsense here....Did you know Lott did not support Bush in 88????? Did you know when Bush ran against Reagan, he campaigned that Reagans economic policy was bogus and that Reagan "WAS TOO SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE". Wow....
Let's just pray the fatalities weren't black if the survivors were white. < /sarcasm >
Boy do you have that wrong! My dad IS Archie Bunker and he'd make mincemeat out of Trent Lott for kissing the butts of the racist blacks, only he wouldn't put it in such polite language.
Of course with us evil white folks rapidly heading for minority status they will have to change the wording to continue to justify preferential treatment for non-white racial groups....something like "traditionally victimized ethnics" or some equally bogus politically correct term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.